Search This Blog

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Paris attacks were not 'nihilism' but sacred strategy

LEADING commentator Janet Daley's article in Saturday's Telegraph ‘The West is at war with a death cult’ stands for everything that is woeful about European elites’ response to Islamic jihad.

It is a triumph of religious illiteracy.

Janet Daley has called ISIS a 'death cult'

The
jihadist enemy, she asserts, is utterly unintelligible, so beyond
encompassing in ‘coherent, systematic thought’ that no vocabulary can
describe it: ‘This is just insanity’, she writes. Because the
enemy is ‘hysterical’, lacking 'rational demands', 'negotiable limits,’
or ‘intelligible objectives’ Daley claims it is pointless to subject its
actions to any form of historical, social or theological analysis, for
no-one should attempt to ‘impose logic on behaviour that is
pathological’.

Despite this, Daley then ventures to offer analysis
of and explanations for ISIS’ actions, but in doing so she relies upon
her own conceptual categories, not those of ISIS.

Her explanations therefore fall wide of the mark.

‘Civilians’

Daley writes: ‘We face a violent and highly contagious madness that believes the killing of civilians is a moral act.’ Here
she appeals to Western concepts of war, reflected, for example, in the
Geneva Convention, which provides detailed principles for the ‘protection of civilian persons’.

Yet the first step in understanding a cultural system alien to one’s own, is to describe it in its own terms.

ISIS
does not subscribe to the Geneva Convention. Its actions and
strategies are based upon medieval Islamic laws of jihad, which make no
use of the modern Western concept of ‘civilian’.

They do, however, refer to the category of disbelievers (mushrik or kafir).
ISIS
believes that killing disbelievers is a moral act, in accordance, for
example, with Sura 9:5 of the Qur’an, which states :‘Fight and kill the
idolators (mushrik) wherever you find them'.

Not nihilism

Daley
writes: ‘The enemy has stated explicitly that it does not revere life
at all’ and ‘Civilians are not collateral damage in this campaign: their
deaths are the whole point.’ She goes on to lament that the latest
French attacks lack any purpose, but are ‘carried out for the sheer
nihilistic thrill of it’.

The claim that ISIS does not ‘revere
life’ seems to refer to any number of statements by Islamic radicals,
including an ISIS militant who vowed to ‘fill the streets of Paris with
dead bodies’, and boasted that ISIS ‘loves death like you love life’
(see here).
This is a theological reference to a series of verses in the Qur’an in
which Jews are criticised for desiring life (Sura 2:94-96, 62:6-8).

According to the Qur’an, loving life is a characteristic of infidels
(Sura 3:14; 14:3; 75:20; 76:27) because it causes them to disregard the
importance of the next life. The taunt much used by jihadis, ‘We love
death like you love life’, implies that jihadis are bound for paradise
while their enemies are hell-bound.

The point of these statements
is that Muslims are willing to fight to the death, while their infidel
enemies will turn back in battle. This is not about reverence for life,
but about who has the will to win. This has nothing to do with
nihilism, which is a belief that there are no values, nothing to be
loyal to, and no purpose in living. In fact ISIS fighters have strong
and clear loyalties and values, alien though they may be to those of
Europe.

Daley’s claim that the deaths are ‘the
whole point’ is also mistaken. While it is true that the jihadis
consider killing infidels a meritorious act, potentially earning the
killer a place in paradise (see here),
and they consider being killed in battle against infidels a ticket to
paradise, in fact the killings do serve a strategic purpose. This is to
make infidels afraid, and thereby to weaken their will to resist Islamic
dominance.

This strategy is commended by the Qur’an, for example
in Sura 8:12, 'I shall cast dread into the hearts of those who
disbelieve. So strike above (their) necks and strike (off) all their
fingers!', as well as by the successful example of Muhammad in fighting
the Jews of Medina, referred to in Sura 33:26-27, ‘He brought down from
their fortifications those of the People of the Book who supported them,
and cast dread into their hearts. You killed a group (of them), and
took captive (another) group. And he caused you to inherit their land,
their homes, and their wealth, and a land you had not set foot on.’ A
similar passage is Sura 59:2, which ISIS has in fact been quoting in its celebrations of the Paris carnage.

It
may seem to Daley that ISIS’ often-stated intention of defeating the
West is fanciful, but the point is to understand ISIS, and as far as it
is concerned, these deadly attacks are instrumental in weakening the
will of infidels and hastening eventual victory.

Daley wonders what possible point these attacks could serve. She
speculates: '… what is the alternative that is being demanded? Sharia
law? The subjection of women? An end to liberal democracy? Are any of
these things even within the bounds of consideration? What could be
accomplished by national self-doubt or criticism at this point, when
there is not even a reasonable basis for discussion with the enemy?' It
is hardly a secret that the ultimate goal of ISIS is to bring
non-Muslims everywhere to convert to Islam or live under an Islamic
caliphate as dhimmis. Sharia law and the subjection of women are part and parcel of this.

It
is odd that Daley laments having no reasonable basis for negotiating
with the enemy. ISIS is not playing by a Western-style negotiating rule
book. It is following Muhammad’s instructions to his followers to offer
three choices to infidels: conversion, surrender, or the sword. Bin
Ladin has explained that the West’s rejection of this framework is the
whole reason for its conflict with what he calls ‘the authority of
Islam’:

“Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with
them ultimately revolve around one issue; one that demands our total
support, with power and determination, with one voice, and it is: Does
Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit
to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only
three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; or
[2] payment of the jizya, through physical, though not
spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or [3] the sword, for
it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up
for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of
Islam, or die.” (The Al Qaeda Reader)

It may seem unimaginable to European elites that ISIS is fighting for
the goal of the surrender or conversion of Europe, but ISIS is thinking
in time frames which extend to centuries, and their forebears conquered
vast territories using such tactics. A final act of conquest can be
preceded by decades, or even centuries, of military raids.

While
killing is currently the main mode of ISIS’ attacks inside the West, if
they could they would use other tactics as well, such as taking booty
and slaves or destroying infrastructure, as they have been doing in
Syria and Iraq.

Grievances

Daley claims it is pointless to
argue with people who have no reasonable grievances, for ‘the French
people did not deserve this, just as Americans did not deserve 9/11’.
However the important question is how ISIS sees its own motivations.
Their ideology teaches them that infidels deserve death, simply by
virtue of their unbelief. This has nothing to do with France’s history
of colonialism or its treatment of Muslim minorities. ISIS needed no
appeal to grievances to justify killing and enslaving Yazidis in Iraq
and Syria, so why should they view the people of France any
differently? Their objection to Europeans is that they are not Muslims,
and their objection to European states is that they do not implement
sharia law.

Irresponsible

It is irresponsible and
dangerous to claim that a tenacious enemy is insane and
incomprehensible. To refuse to acknowledge the ideology of ISIS, and to
deny its relevance is tantamount to a death-wish.
Like so many
other revivalist Islamic groups, ISIS believes that it will be
successful if it stays faithful to its divinely-mandated goals and
tactics. It believes the nations of Europe are morally corrupt, weak
infidels who love life too much to fight a battle to the death with
stern Muslim soldiers who have set their hearts on paradise. It
believes Europe stands on the wrong side of history.

To combat
this ideology it is necessary for Europe to prove ISIS wrong on all
counts. It must show strength, not weakness. It must have confidence in
its cultural and spiritual identity. It must be willing to fight for its
survival. It must show that it believes in itself enough to fight for
its future. It must defend its borders. It must act like someone who
intends to win an interminably long war against an implacable foe.

There
is a great deal Europe could have done to avert this catastrophe. It
could, long ago, have challenged the Islamic view of history which
idolised jihad and its intended outcome, the dhimma. It could
have demanded that Islam renounce its love affair with conquest and
dominance. It could have encouraged Muslims to follow a path of
self-criticism leading to peace. This lost opportunity is what Bat
Ye’or referred to in a prescient 1993 interview as the ‘relativization of religion, a self-critical view of the history of Islamic imperialism’.

Instead the elites of Europe embarked on decades of religiously illiterate appeasement and denialism.

There
is still much that European states could do to defeat ISIS. They
could, for example, inflict catastrophic military failure upon it as a
powerful counter-argument to its theology of success. This will not
deliver decisive, final victory against jihadism, but it will make the
supremacist claims of ISIS less credible and hurt its recruitment.
Islam’s laws of war allow Muslims to suspend their battle with infidels
temporarily if there is no immediate prospect of victory and the risks
to their cause are too great.

Europe also needs to act to suppress
incitement of jihadi ideology by its clients, including the
anti-Israeli jihadism of the Palestinian Authority. It must put more
pressure on the militarily vulnerable Gulf states to stop funding
Islamic radicalism throughout the Middle East and exporting
jihad-revering versions of Islamic theology throughout the whole world.

One
hope for Europe is that Islamic populations will get tired of the
doctrine of jihad and all its bitter fruits. There are some signs that
this is already happening, and many of the Muslims who are now seeking
asylum in their hundreds of thousands will have come to this
conclusion. However it seems likely that Muslim communities now
established within Europe will be the last to reconsider their dogmas
and their take on history, because they have not had to suffer
first-hand the harsh realities of life under Islamic dystopias such as
the ISIS ‘caliphate’ or Iran’s Islamic Revolution. A 2014 opinion poll
found that among French 18-24 year olds, the Islamic State had an
approval rating of 27%, which must include the overwhelming majority of
young French Muslim men. For Europe, the challenge from within will be
more enduring and intractable than the challenge from without.

Nevertheless,
European states could still do much on their own turf. They could ban
Saudi and other Middle Eastern funding to Islamic organisations,
including mosques. They could stop appeasing Islamists in their midst.
They could, even at this late hour, demand that the large and rapidly
growing Muslim communities now well-established across Europe engage in
constructive self-criticism of their religion, for the sake of peace.

23 comments:

Thank you Mark for this succinct and accurate analysis. Like a breath of fresh air after being rained on by the medias very confused and confusing comments. The West must learn to start thinking like muslims, and familiarise themselves with Islamic doctrine to understand their motivations. Western laws and codes I agree are mainly worthless in combatting jihad. Words like assimilation, democracy, freedom, charity, and others all seem to have a very different meaning.

How do you deal with someone who, rather than fearing death, actually wants to die as a martyr? The answer is simple - find something they really DO fear! Islamic jihadists are happy to die in jihad because they believe they will get a direct pass to heaven where 72 virgins await them. Whether they win the battle or die fighting they won't lose.However, they have an Achille's Heel - if they are killed by an 'inferior' woman, they lose the entry to heaven and all the virgins.That's one of the reasons the Kurdish forces do so well fighting against ISIS - they have female soldiers and their battle cry puts the fear of God into them because they'll never know if the bullet that could kill them was fired by a woman and in an instant, instead of heaven and all those virgins it's hell for all eternity. I wonder how more effective the bombing campaigns against the jihadists by Russia and the West would be f there were a number of female pilots flying the missions and that was widely publicized? We'd soon find out how brave the Jihadists really are! How much would they really be willing to risk in the name of jihad if there was the real possibility they might lose everything for all eternity. Would they be so quick to celebrate the martyrdom of their dead comrades and children if there was a real measure of doubt about what fate actually befell them?

Is there actually a basis of that in their texts? I've heard so far 2 versions, that this is just in the case of ISIS and generally. So I was wondering since you also mention it here, if it's just ISIS and why or all jihadist terrorist groups?

Excellently said. Rather than being incomprehensible, jihadist ideology is all too comprehensible. The problem is that the West is unable to accept it, given its intellectual descent into relativism.

Islam is an ideology of total theocratic domination. And it's in no hurry to finish its task. But to ascribe to militant Islam a random nihilism shows no appreciation of Islam's texts or history.

The huge problem for current Western thinking is to come to terms with the true spiritual/political content and purpose of Islam. For as long as we hear statements such as: there is no clash of worldviews or civilizations, the West underestimates its peril.

Islam was spread at the point of the sword. It has been present in power on the continent of Europe before, and it could be again. We have already welcomed in the potential source of our undoing, as a civilization, with our substantial Muslim populations, which must be continually told that we don't hold them responsible for the behavior of an aberrant minority.

If Islam is a religion of peace, and if jihad is anathema to all right thinking Muslims, why is the silence from our Muslim communities and from those in the Middle East and Africa so deafening?

Our politicians do us no favors by speaking in appeasing terms, as though Islam had learned coexistence.

Hello MarkI have read some different oplinions about the life of Jews in Islamic countries before 1900 that maintain it was better than in Christian countries. Did the jizzya tax always apply? I know that Christian persecution of Jews was a sad reality, but the truth seems a bit elusive due to possible moral equivalence arguments. Have you ever discussed these historical issues or could you suggest a book or article that might supply further information?

Jesus did not preach about persecuting anyone, but Christians somehow managed to declare Jews as heretics & therefore kill them horribly if they didn't convert. Have you heard of the "Spanish Inquistion"? If not look it up on Google etc.Then there were wars between Catholics & Protestants over the years. At least that stopped long ago.

Raising the question of 'Self Criticizing' is a start! It is better than just standing there with your mouth open, in utter disbelief about events like what took place in Paris!

More people need to blow that horn!

It will not change their foundational beliefs but it will prompt them to start thinking. As humans they are capable! It will at least make those who have never entertained the thought...to hesitate on the issue just long enough to halt at indiscriminate murder. It just may be enough time to save someone's life!

Then maybe later... there would be second thoughts and second thoughts may lead to a reevaluation of the system of thought that they subscribe to, at least for them to doubt themselves and inadvertently blurt out ... 'is this right? Then maybe a conversion in their minds as to why the carnage at all... It is a start!

We cannot just hold to the thought that says..."why sit we here until we die..." attitude which makes for generating fear that the terrorist hope for!

In previous centuries, and most of the 20th, it was understood that islam is incompatible with western/Christian values, and muslims were kept out of the west. It was inconvievable that a muslim population should be imported to the west. With the death of Christianity, the rise of left think and multiculturalism, the rational thought derived from reality and empirical evidence has been denied. That is why the foolish Europeans have imported millions of muslims, and why America is stupidly considering the same. Evern if there atre "good" (behaviorally,) muslims, the underlying philosophy of conquest, murder, rape and genocide exists in the "holy" book Koran. It is because of this that no muslim can ever be truly trusted, since their underlying ideology calls for the destruction of anything alien to it.

The major problem in my opinion is that islam and muslims are only viewed from the perspective of terror and terrorist. This is not the case why is christianity not judged on the activities of the crusades, its unfair to judge a religion on the opinion and parralel beliefs of a certain sect. Terror groups in the world do not constitute the whole of the muslim population but rather a microscopic section that thinks and views islam in a different way that has to do with terror and killing of mushriks. To say that islam promotes the killing of all non muslims while also stating that the quran also stated that there is no compulsion in religion is a bit confussing and means that islam contradicts itself. The verses you are qouting to explain isis ideology of killing are not always reffering to muslims and non muslims of the modern era but are speaking about the conflict that insued between the prophet and the the arabian pagans in makkah who opposed him and even threatened the early muslims and even there it was stated that you are not to kill them unless and until they kill you. So i believe that its not a mattter of self criticism or consolidated military effort or bombing by females that will solve isis crisis but rather better understanding of wether islam and understanding wether those fighting in the name of islam are actually fighting for its cause, the rationale here is of isis bomb half of europe and kill the majority or all of the non muslim civilians then who is left to be converted i believe the isis crisis is more of a political crisis from an oppresed people than a religious one and the solvijg of the political crisis in these areas is what would make the war go away. Note: jihad literrally means striving in the cause of god not killing u can perform jihad by preaching or giving social services to those in need it does not neccesarily mean fighting but rather striving in the cause of religion, also the jihadis resolve that when they die they go to heaven is not reduced because they are killed by women from the context in which they collect their belief it doesnot matter wether you are killed by a child or a woman if you die while striving for the relgion you go to heaven. Thanks

The crusaders were not Christians. they were catholics. Alsothe teachings of The Lord Jesus Christ contradicts with crusaders's actions. However what ISIS is doing is exactly what their "holy book" commands them to do. Also The crusades were done hundreds of years ago and yet isis still does that...Goodnight

Christianity existed long before it was adopted and corrupted by the Romans into the the official state religion (you will note the 'Roman' in Roman Catholic Church), it was known as 'The Way'. The Crusades were a direct response to 400 years of Musul expansionism and belligerence on its frontiers.

The root of the problem is not with Muslims or with Christians, not with Arabs or Europeans, not with privilege or oppression. The root of the problem is religion. Not a particular religion, not a distortion of a religion, but religion per se. Belief cannot overcome evil, because belief itself is evil.

Eliminating all religions and all gods is the only way forward.

The way to begin is to listen seriously to religious doctrine, to really pay attention for the first time to what is being said, and to allow your natural reaction to emerge - laughter. Religion is ridiculous, and it is slowly killing us all.

Religion does not deserve to be taken seriously. Religious beliefs do not deserve respect. Please do your part to laugh at all religion and to stop giving it respect, both privately and in public. Your laughter and ridicule may help to save the world.

I beg to differ. All human thought is belief, as all thinking is based on individual interpretation and reaction to incomplete and/or flawed sensory data. All belief cannot be stated as being evil, as this is the judgment of one against the thoughts of all including oneself. It is impossible to "eliminate all religions and all gods" and still exist. You are thus making yourself into a "god". Religion is not killing us all. It is a symptom of a much deeper illness. An illness that every finite being suffers from, including you, and me. The real problem is each individual's insane belief that life is possible apart from the source of life. Jihadism is another warped form of this illness. It believes that one can ultimately promote life (righteously) by seeking the death of others. As no one can ultimately know the heart of another, such action is ultimately murder. Some "religions" have called this human nature problem sin. I prescribe that it is a sickness that only a perfect God can fix. Not a god of war, but a god of love, for a warring heart is a symptom of the illness, not the cure.

Why is it impossible to eliminate all religions? Communism and other dorms of government did a pretty food job albeit ruthlessly. China now moves forard as a county and doesn't celebrate the cultural revolution that for them to their current point. All religions are backwards in that they look backwards for inspiration to live into the future. How dumb is that! We should be looking to the future for inspiration and longevity of our species and that's how we need to start thinking to survive....as a species.

AND MORE LINKS

Buy Sister Religions

Buy THE THIRD CHOICE

About Me

Dr Mark Durie is an academic, human rights activist, pastor, Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and Adjunct Research Fellow of the Arthur Jeffery Centre of the Melbourne School of Theology. He has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom. Holding a PhD in Linguistics from Australian National University and a ThD in Quranic Theology from the Australian College of Theology, he has held visiting appointments at the University of Leiden, MIT, UCLA and Stanford, and was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1992.